Proposed ESF nerf: Why? Will it improve revenue?

phungus · 2013-08-04, 02:52 PM

Reading the discussions here and on the main forum I'm continually struck with the same question. Why is ESF maneuverability getting nerfed?

I have only seen players who don't fly ESFs or who fly them poorly support the changes. As far as I can tell the idea is to limit ESF maneuverability to become more inline with traditional FW models that exist in every game with fighter aircraft. This seems nonsensical; PS2 doesn't have a physics engine to properly simulate a FW model anyway, and FW models have been played with for decades and are stale in comparison to what's there in PS2.

So why, what's the design goal here? The only thing I see this doing is making it more difficult to dodge in hoverduels, and I don't see how or why that would be a good thing - it only compresses the skill cap.

Is the intent behind this change simply to lower the skill ceiling? Why is that a good thing? How will this make things more engaging for the player?

I guess I just don't get it, I see no benefits. Everyone who plays ESFs enough to be effected by this are just going to be nerfed (which never feels good), they all pay money (most are members), and it's only going to help poor players (who don't pay nearly as much as dedicated ESF players) who mass in the air making it easier to gank ESFs with numbers instead of skill. If this change has the effect I assume it will, especially since it coincides with Star Citizen's hanger release, then all it will do is negatively effect players who actually spend money and encourage them to spend it elsewhere (Star Citizen).

Am I missing something here? Is there any reason to nerf Vthrust in ESFs other then to lower the skill ceiling and negatively impact the experience of dedicated players who actually spend decent $$$ on the game? If we looked at the posters who support nerfing ESF maneuverability vs those who oppose what does the revenue look like that comes from those voices? I've probably spend the least of those who fly ESFs yet I've still dropped over $100 (I think it's around $120, with another $50 planned for the ESF update that I will not be spending now with the proposed changes) and every other ESF player who's posted here is a straight up member - those who want the ESF nerfed run the gambit with most being non paying scrooges. I really don't get it, it's like the devs want to slap the hand that feeds them while coddling the casual that refuses to drop a dime. I could be wrong here though, maybe the scores of casual players who repeatedly demand ESF nerfs and a FW model will suddenly open their pockets the moment the hard core players have their favorite toys nerfed, but I don't see why this would happen.

Also why do people think a FW flight model would work with PS2 in the first place? With the lack of necessary physics effects (like a flight envelope, and proper energy management) a FW model will be a gutted poor man's simulation more simplified then even BF3. With rendering mechanics granting invisible god mode to players dynamically at ranges beyond 100m it would be outright impossible to acquire and engage targets with such a model. All I see FW model doing is reducing complexity and limiting player actions to create a more restricted and less engaging playing experience. I don't see a single benefit to FW models (or nerfing VTOL ability to be more FW like) and a full FW model would simply not work with the current engine at all...

So what's the deal here? What purpose does the proposed nerf serve, and how do the bean counters reckon it will increase revenue? I only see this change making the gameplay less engaging, and I don't see how it will increase revenue especially since those of us who likely would drop cash for the ESF update are significantly less likely to do so now that we know we are getting hit with a huge nerf to our favorite thing in the game.

What am I missing here? From a gameply experience or in terms of revenue please enlighten with arguments as to how this will benefit either.

DarkBalths · 2013-08-04, 03:09 PM

Everyone in the entire world hates the ESF fuckers who float over a base and rocketpod the living hell out of infantry. Instead of having "helicopters" that float overhead and annihilate infantry, they're trying to lean more towards strafing runs, and coordinated airstrikes. PS2 is SUPPOSED to be a teamwork game, so I'm assuming the end goal is something like this:
Let's say we've got a 12 man squad. 3 players are dedicated ESF pilots. The rest are infantry moving into a base. "Oh no, there's a bunch of enemy infantry at the base we're pushing into!" Lead puts squad waypoint at the target infantry and tells the three flyboys to come in, dump some rockets into the waypoint, and fly on out.

See how that's more team oriented, and more interesting than some guy lone wolfing in his mosquito lolpodding infantry as they exit the spawn room?

I think [and hope] that's what they're going for.

maradine · 2013-08-04, 03:13 PM

It's possible the skill ceiling is too high for where they want the majority of their revenue-bearing players. Skill ceiling isn't a judgmental scalar where every time you crank it up it's better, and every time you crank it down it's worse.

There are things they could hypothetically add to the flight model that would make anyone without a lot of keyboard real-estate, an analog six-axis control rig, head virtualization, and an 18-year-old reflex profile utterly melt. Would it be better? Only for the people who can effectively fight above that line. They like the perceived superiority it gives them because they're on the fun side of the line. They think that anyone below that line shouldn't be able to ever take them in a fight.

The rest of the pack gets frustrated. Why does this stupid game require you to control all your thrust vectors at once with different buttons? Why do only "skillshot" engine hits cause damage? Why is this so hard?

So, to answer your question: if the skill ceiling goes down, maybe more pilots get an opportunity to feel like they're badass and dump money into the air game. So they tune the line in order to find a balance between accessible and virtuoso. Or maybe not. Who knows - they certainly haven't communicated the vision, so your guess is as good as mine.

Oh, and:

Originally Posted by phungus

I have only seen players who don't fly ESFs or who fly them poorly support the changes

Consider yourself empirically corrected.

phungus · 2013-08-04, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by DarkBalths

Everyone in the entire world hates the ESF fuckers who float over a base and rocketpod the living hell out of infantry. Instead of having "helicopters" that float overhead and annihilate infantry, they're trying to lean more towards strafing runs, and coordinated airstrikes. PS2 is SUPPOSED to be a teamwork game, so I'm assuming the end goal is something like this:
Let's say we've got a 12 man squad. 3 players are dedicated ESF pilots. The rest are infantry moving into a base. "Oh no, there's a bunch of enemy infantry at the base we're pushing into!" Lead puts squad waypoint at the target infantry and tells the three flyboys to come in, dump some rockets into the waypoint, and fly on out.

See how that's more team oriented, and more interesting than some guy lone wolfing in his mosquito lolpodding infantry as they exit the spawn room?

I think [and hope] that's what they're going for.

I see the argument but it wol't play out that way. The changes to hover allowed me to still gun down ground targets fine with hover chasis on my sythe - the only noteable effect of the Vthrust nerf is reduction in dodge speed and will only matter in hoverduels (and more significantly in single ace vs 2/3 competent ESFs, the ace's ability to dodge will decrease significantly, meaning the average ESFs land more shots making it more difficult to engage 2/3 v 1 as an ace). maradine points out why this could benificial in the post above, but make no mistake this change will not help "ground pounders" or encourage "teamwork" in any way I can see.

ChipMHazard · 2013-08-04, 03:36 PM

What I don't get is why you thought this change needed a new thread (Not writing this in my capacity as a mod, but a forum member)? Why do you think that only those who either don't fly or are just not very good at it support this change? Why did you think that it was a good idea to use "Those of us who fly are paying customers, the filthy plebs on the ground aren't!" as an argument? I'm obviously paraphrasing here because what you wrote came of as being rather elitist.
Why do you think that most of those who fly in PS2 are members? Do you have proof of this? Why do you think that it matters how much a certain part of a playerbase actually spends on the game? Should balancing actually be affected by this? Why do you think that the devs even consider this to be an important overall goal when making balancing changes?

Did you just refer to those who have yet to spend any money on the game as scrooges?!? I would strongly advice against going down that train of thought.

*Ahem* Safe to state that I completely dismiss the premises of your argument. Personally I would rather have the flight model be that of VTOL being used just for that and the flying being more traditional. If for no other reason than I think the ESFs are too versatile and that makes it rather hard to implement new aerial vehicles later on that could fill other roles... Like close ground support. But that's another story for another time.
I don't see any reason as to why a more traditional flight model wouldn't work in PS2. I'm sure that if they wanted to they could make it work.
I also don't think that is what they are trying to implement here by means of this change.I think that SOE believes this maneuver to have become so important that those who cannot perform it almost always lose. Or perhaps they never intended for the ESF to be used in such a manner. Who knows. I have no idea and as such you could be right. I personally doubt it.
I would have liked for the devs to have explained why they are going to make this change, unless they already have and I've just missed it. We will certainly be getting a better idea of "Why?" when we see/hear more about the upcoming ESF changes.

Edit: Also, why do you think this has anything to do with Star Citizen?

phungus · 2013-08-04, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Why do you think this has anything to do with Star Citizen?

Because everything about life is driven by competition, specifically competition for resources. Star Citizen and PS2 will be in direct competition for $$$ from the same customer base, especially those who fly ESFs.

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

What I don't get is why you thought this change needed a new thread

It might not. But Snafu's thread is cluttered with other ideas and begins with the premise that ESF pilots should revolt/quit because of the changes. I really just want to hear good arguments as to why a Fixed Wing model (or more FW like model) would improve gameplay or increase revenue. I had not heard a single argument that made logical sense yet. You have the power to merge this thread with Snafu's, you haven't yet so I assume you have reason not to.

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Why did you think that it was a good idea to use "Those of us who fly are paying customers, the filthy plebs on the ground aren't!" as an argument?

Because everyone who beats me consistently in the air is a paying member, and everyone who is good in the air I have contacted and flown with is either a member or has paid a significant ammount of money (over $100), and I send messages to and try to fly with alot of ESF players on Connery. Put it this way, if we could see the data over the PS2 main forums from those supporting the maneuverability nerf to those against it I would be very confident that the ESF players who are against the idea not only pay more on average (by at least a factor of 3), but also as a whole have spent at least 3 times the cash - I would confidently bet up to $1000 on it, would you be willing to take that bet if it were possible?

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Personally I would rather have the flight model be that of VTOL being used just for that and the flying being more traditional.

So you think ground targets should be completely immune to ESFs? With how the dynamic invisible god mode fields players generate work, FW craft would have no ability to engage infantry targets since those targets would literally never render.

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

I think the ESFs are too versatile and that makes it rather hard to implement new aerial vehicles later on that could fill other roles... Like close ground support.

I've spent over 500 hours in an ESF, yet my SPH and Kills per hour is still higher in a MAX (that I have spent less then a 10th the time with). My zero resource heavy assault has a SPH and KPH gain of nearly 90% my ESFs. What you think does not fit the data, ESFs do not even outperform Infantry at all skill levels, and even the dedicated ESF pilots can't outperform their MAXes. Daddy, one of the most notorious primarily ESF players even outperforms his ESF with Light Assault, by a significant margin.

ESFs are not too versatile, or even combat effective. What they are is fun, and I don't see the point in trying to ruin that by going to a traditional and very restricting flight model.

ChipMHazard · 2013-08-04, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by phungus

Because everything about life is driven by competition, specifically competition for resources. Star Citizen and PS2 will be in direct competition for $$$ from the same customer base, especially those who fly ESFs.

Only as so far that all games compete with each other. I don't agree that Star Citizen and Planetside 2 are in direct competition with each other beyond that. Even if both of them feature flying.

Originally Posted by phungus

It might not. But Snafu's thread is cluttered with other ideas and begins with the premise that ESF pilots should revolt/quit because of the changes. I really just want to hear good arguments as to why a Fixed Wing model (or more FW like model) would improve gameplay or increase revenue. I had not heard a single argument that made logical sense yet. You have the power to merge this thread with Snafu's, you haven't yet so I assume you have reason not to.

Because some people would prefer a more traditional way of flying? Seems like a perfectly valid reason to me whether or not you agree with it. Would it improve gameplay? No idea, it would be different and might help to alleviate certain issues that some players have brought up; examples being hover combat and rocketpodders. If the devs are seeing fewer and fewer players, nor at least not as many as they had hoped for, flying around in ESFs against other ESFs then that might also be a reason. I still don't see why an increase in sales is supposed to be the driving factor here and as such I don't see the relevance of whether or not this will increase or hurt the sales of weapons and cosmetics, which are the only things you can buy for an ESF. I would think that said items would be bought either way, except if they completely mocked it up.
You're right I could simply merge them but the threads are different enough that I don't personally think it's needed. Still don't see the reason for making a new thread about it though, although I can see your reasoning behind it.

Originally Posted by phungus

Because everyone who beats me consistently in the air is a paying member, and everyone who is good in the air I have contacted and flown with is either a member or has paid a significant ammount of money (over $100), and I send messages to and try to fly with alot of ESF players on Connery. Put it this way, if we could see the data over the PS2 main forums from those supporting the maneuverability nerf to those against it I would be very confident that the ESF players who are against the idea not only pay more on average (by at least a factor of 3), but also as a whole have spent at least 3 times the cash - I would confidently bet up to $1000 on it, would you be willing to take that bet if it were possible?

Unless you've met a large enough sample size of the entire playerbase which prefers to fly ESFs then I wouldn't try waging anything. Yes I would wager that the majority of those that pilot ESFs aren't big spenders and/or have even spent anything on the game. Generally speaking only relatively few, percentage wise, actually purchase anything in a F2P game. That's how the market has worked so far, but I could of course be wrong and things could have changed.
I also wouldn't mind putting money down on there being no more of your so called paying customers whom are against the changes than there are those whom are for it, or at least indifferent towards it. Unless you're willing to find every single person who spends a large part of their time flying ESFs I would advice against trying to use it as an argument. Because unless you can provide proof to back up your claim then it might turn into a silly fallacy.
Also I still don't see what paying has to do with balancing. Those who spend money on the game have no more say on balancing issues than those whom do not. If you truly believe in that elitist attitude then I will simply ignore that argument completely as being an actual fallacy.
Also I obviously wouldn't wager with someone over the internet, even if I believed I was right. Only a complete tosser would ever do that, for the internet is dark and full of terrors.

Originally Posted by phungus

So you think ground targets should be completely immune to ESFs? With how the dynamic invisible god mode fields players generate work, FW craft would have no ability to engage infantry targets since those targets would literally never render.

Did I write immune? No, I didn't. Would I prefer it if ESFs were focused on an air superiority role instead of the hybrid build we have now? Yes, yes I would. That would make it easier to balance for that specific role and would allow for SOE to make a new ground support aircraft. In other words I do not personally think that the ESFs should be focused so much on attacking ground targets, they should be mostly about taking out other aircraft.
But if pilots were still able to hit infantry targets then so be it, at least it wouldn't be as easy as it is now. Heck, they could even make completely different loadouts for the ESF that would allow it to perform specific roles.

Originally Posted by phungus

I've spent over 500 hours in an ESF, yet my SPH and Kills per hour is still higher in a MAX (that I have spent less then a 10th the time with). My zero resource heavy assault has a SPH and KPH gain of nearly 90% my ESFs. What you think does not fit the data, ESFs do not even outperform Infantry at all skill levels, and even the dedicated ESF pilots can't outperform their MAXes. Daddy, one of the most notorious primarily ESF players even outperforms his ESF with Light Assault, by a significant margin.

How was that relevant to what I wrote? I wrote versatile, not the most deadly nor the most cost effective.

Originally Posted by phungus

ESFs are not too versatile, or even combat effective. What they are is fun, and I don't see the point in trying to ruin that by going to a traditional and very restricting flight model.

Well I think they are too versatile and also very effective at what players use them for. Are they fun? I guess, although I find the dog fighting to be a bit dull and silly really. But that's just my opinion on the matter... Which is funny when you think of it because.... Oddly enough different people find different things to be fun. And even more strange is that none of them are wrong or right, funny that. What you see as being devoid of fun and restrictive, other people see as being fun and just as restrictive as what we have now.. Which is to say not restrictive at all.
But if this change and the upcoming changes do end up having an adverse effect on the ESF gameplay then I won't hesitate to agree with you. For now I simply don't see the problem being as big as some people think, at least not being worse than some players having to play in a different way.

Eggy · 2013-08-04, 05:55 PM

? ESFs are the only vehicle in the entire game that gives 2 weapon systems to 1 person. This makes them very versatile.
They are also able to 1V1 most of there ground based counters and in >90% of the time come out on top, so again very versatile.

MBTs were fun and yet there max speed, hill climbing and traction was nerfed so they became more balanced and could be countered.

Harrasers were fun but there composite armour was nerfed so they became more balanced and can now be countered even easier.

Libs were fun, but Dalton, Zepher and "the other one" all got nerfed/altered so they became more balanced.

You see the ESFs as this totaly honourable red baron style dog fighting elite cadre of total uber awesomness.

What the guy next to you sees is a vulture with 2 weapon systems thats able to fly around and pretty much with impunity pick off target with no resistance while hovering staticly in the air.

This "in air turret" was one of the first things mentioned in the pre-tech videos as something the devs wanted to avoid.
As someone else has allready highlighted above, this "change" will force the ESF that wishes to engage a ground target to do straffing runs instead of flying in, Stoping movement completely and unloading.

I also have paid mucho dollars since day 1. I own the AA gun for the prowler, the striker, the skyguard, the anihaltor, the grounder and the dual burster and I still get killed daily by an esf thats able to stop on a dime and unload all its clips from all its weapons in less time than it takes me to lock on or get hit reg.

As someone has posted above ESFs should have had the Air to Air role primarily and had to severly gimp themselves to be Air To Ground. Just like MBTs and Harrasers have to do when facing armour, air and infantry.

AThreatToYou · 2013-08-04, 07:00 PM

I won't put any doubt into saying that most ESF Aces are paying customers. Big paying customers, and they tarry far into the rage-zone when literally anything negative is done to ESF. Yet, what that high skill ceiling in an ESF does is it makes a single game unit be dominant over many other game units and even its equivalent set.

I see this change coming directly from it being more difficult to chase down an ESF as an interceptor than it is just to spam flak at it. The PS2 devs wanted us to use ESF to fight other ESF. That did not pan out well, and I will agree whole-heartedly that hovering ESF are pretty well protected against interception, largely because the interception relies on having superior speed and maneuverability. When the battle comes to a hover-fight, the helicopter hover-dueller will then have superior speed and acceleration due to the hover chassis and vertical thrust mechanics that assists in its area of expertise, which is killing ground targets. So now the interceptor is statistically inferior to the hover-spammer with an easy-to-bait strategy with no obvious counter.

Case the point, nerf. I don't like this nerf. I think ESF should be able to straight-up hover right on a point like in PS1, because hovering ESF are so damn easy to shoot down from the ground. In any case, for ESF v ESF, I emphatically support this nerf. It's needed. I just wish we had another option. Like, reducing active ESF vthrust but increasing passive ESF hover capability. Actually I'm pretty sure that will fix everything.

maradine · 2013-08-04, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

I see this change coming directly from it being more difficult to chase down an ESF as an interceptor than it is just to spam flak at it. The PS2 devs wanted us to use ESF to fight other ESF. That did not pan out well, and I will agree whole-heartedly that hovering ESF are pretty well protected against interception, largely because the interception relies on having superior speed and maneuverability. When the battle comes to a hover-fight, the helicopter hover-dueller will then have superior speed and acceleration due to the hover chassis and vertical thrust mechanics that assists in its area of expertise, which is killing ground targets. So now the interceptor is statistically inferior to the hover-spammer with an easy-to-bait strategy with no obvious counter.

Very astute - hadn't even considered that. Although, again, who knows what they have in mind.

NewSith · 2013-08-04, 08:17 PM

If it was up to me I would've removed the hovering as a whole and make all ESFs CTOL. But that's too hard to do properly in a game with thousands of players, because balancing, mechanics and whine.

snafus · 2013-08-04, 09:25 PM

It seems Rak from NUC was able to snag a convo with higby and kovmo on some of the matters relating to the possible vertical thrust nerf.

Originally Posted by Rak, post: 2036295, member: 15661

I was able to talk to Higby and Kevmo more about the reverse maneuver nerf. I showed Kevmo examples of maneuvers that rely on afterburners in VTOL that aren't reverse maneuvers(yeah there is more to it than just the reverse maneuver) and we talked about ways to make the air game more interesting without neutering the reverse maneuver. He seemed well aware that this nerf will actually make the air game less interesting and it seemed very unlikely that it will go live like this. The most popular idea discussed of course was tying the maneuver to AB tanks and I think that's the way they'll end up going with it. I also made the suggestion of giving the pilot direct control over thruster position. Kevmo liked that idea but stated that it would require a lot of work to implement something like that. Higby mentioned that when things are more finalized, he wants to gather the top pilots and try things out on test.

Though I still very much so disagree with them tampering with a great system. At least we have some feed back on the purpose and situation of the changes.

Now on some of the arguments being laid out here I can only speak for the pilots I interact with. I regularly fly with the top pilots on Connery and we gossip to each other worse then 15 year old girls. And we all are very much so financially and emotionally committed to this game. Hell I have spent over 300$ so far and that may be low balling it. And I know from word of mouth alone that the other guys have put quite a few bucks in them selves.

Now this doesn't make me more important then a non paying players. I simply love the shit out of this game and wanted to support them as much as I could. But their recent direction they seemed to have taken very much so is a slap to the face of all the dedicated pilots I fly with or against.

From my experience ESF are probably the most sensitive to any forms of changes or abnormalities that take place in game "lag". Flying an ESF as a top tier pilot demands that you have full understanding of your aircraft and be faster or at least equal to your opponents reaction time and skill. That is why we are always so prissy about even the smallest changes to our aircraft. Have you ever wondered why after every major patch a bunch of ESF pilots cry about sloppy controls? It's because most patches reset and lower our vehicle sensitivity without actually showing you it was done.

Now SOE has told us we are not taking a 10%, or even 30% reduction to vertical thrust, but 75% reduction. If we cry when it is a slight difference to our perceived standard then how do you think we will react to that? We are freaking out because the very aspect that so many of us have paid hundreds of dollars for and played for even more is about to be butchered for the sake of making it casual friendly.

Now I am no business major and have no experience with what it takes to run a game company. But how could it be smart to alienate potentially a large portion of your pilots for a chance to grab newer players? From what I have seen there won't be a resurgent of new bodies until the console version hits the shelves. But anyway I am just another bitter air *** who hopes that SOE will keep the only challenging aspect intact in this game. The challenge that air combat gives is the sole reason I continue to play this game. If they reduce that to a hooked on phonics level, me and many other pilots will simply move on to star citizen or other promising flight games.

maradine · 2013-08-04, 09:38 PM

The short answer is, "if getting 100 pilots partially invested is worth more than losing 10 who are". I really don't know. I had a few years in the F2P industry, and it was just as much long-tail as it was whale maintenance. Whether $300 qualifies as a whale here is an interesting side question.

I've already dumped far more money into Star Citizen than I have into PS2 (I've been with Roberts for almost 25 years - I'm a bit of a sucker). That doesn't mean I don't want them to find the right balance here. I want flight to be rewarding, but I don't want one aspect of it to be the only one that really matters. It sounds like the right people are aware of the issue - here's hoping this summit produces something everyone will like.

Wahooo · 2013-08-05, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Eggy

This "in air turret" was one of the first things mentioned in the pre-tech videos as something the devs wanted to avoid.

Really this. Though it isn't saying that this is a good thing now as it so completely changes the way people fly. It was a major "this was something we did NOT want from PS1" and that was "dog fighting" was just turreting. It had seemed the devs wanted to go with somewhat more traditional fixed wing type of flying but that isn't what we got. Had the original design of the ESFs been this way it would be fine, but to change it now?
It doesn't affect me as I am one of the worst pilots in the game, BUT changes like this need major discussion and justification from the Devs because it does completely change a whole play style.

Carver · 2013-08-05, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Or perhaps they never intended for the ESF to be used in such a manner.

I suspect that this is the case. If you were supposed to be able to fly backwards there would be a "Fly Backwards" key.